Subject: Re: [alto] Finalizing draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto

From: Kevin Ma <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2020 14:41:54 -0500

Hi Jan,

  Sorry for the delayed response.  My comments as a co-author and CDNI
reviewer are below.  Sanjay Mishra has also volunteered to provide an
independent CDNI review.

thanx!

--  Kevin J. Ma

- section 3.7.1:
  "one CDNI FCI resource depending on a network map, one filtered CDNI FCI
resource to be defined in Section 5," -> "one filtered CDNI FCI resource to
be defined in Section 5, one CDNI FCI resource depending on a network map,"
 or change the order in the json example

  why do the filtered-cdnifci-property-map countrycode and asn capabilities
not have my-default-network-map.pid properties?

  in update-my-cdni-fci, for the my-filtered-cdnifci capability,
""application/merge-patch+jso" should be ""application/merge-patch+json"

- section 3.7.3:
  is this intended to be a continuation of the example in 3.7.2?  if so,
should "http/2" be in the 3.7.2 example, if it's being removed in 3.7.3?
 specifically, should "http/2" be "https/1.1" in 3.7.3?

  in the footprint example, should the "value": "ipv4:192.0.2.0/24" be a
footprint object, i.e., "{ "footprint-type": "ipv4", "footprint-value": ["
192.0.2.0/24"] } ?  (same comment applies to the example in 5.7.3)

  when adding a new ipv4 footprint, does this assume that there was not
previously an ipv4 footprint defined?  if there was a previously defined
ipv4 footprint, the update should change the footprint-value array in the
ipv4 footprint structure?

- section 6.2.4:
  the update of "ipv4:192.0.2.0/24" delivery protocol from "http/1.1" to
"http/1.1" doesn't actually change anything?

- section 7.1:
  should probably add some text asking IANA to add the entry to the "CDNI
Metadata Footprint Types" registry, and add a link to its definition in
section 4.1.

- authors:
  probably should change my email to: [email-masked] and remove
my Ericsson affiliation?

nits:

- section 1:
  "On a high level" -> "At a high level"
  "; (2) redirecting" -> "; and (2) redirecting"
  "; (2) CDNI" -> "; and (2) CDNI"
  "are already in [RFC8008]" -> "are already defined in [RFC8008]"

- section 2.1:
  "look like" -> "look"
  "asn and countrycode" -> "asn, and countrycode"
  "a /32 for IPv4 and a /128 for IPv6" -> "a /32 for IPv4 or a /128 for
IPv6"
  "; (5) Capabilities" -> "; and (5) Capabilities"

- section 2.2:
  "have difficulty to measure" -> "have difficulty measuring"
  "downstream CDN" -> "dCDN"
  "QoS" -> "quality of service" ?
  "cost map from dCDN" -> "cost map from the dCDN"
  "therefore redirect requests to dCDN" -> "redirect requests to a dCDN"
  "an upstream CDN" -> "a uCDN"
  "e.g. " -> "e.g., "

- section 3.5:
  "The future documents" -> "Future documents"

- section 3.7.2:
  "delivery protocol and https/1.1" -> "delivery protocol, and https/1.1"

- section 5:
  "constrains" -> "constraints"
  "only if the entry contains at least one of the client given capabilities
will it be returned to the client" -> "an entry will only be returned to
the client if it contains at least one of the client given capabilities"

- section 5.7.2:
  "only http/1.1 delivery protocol" -> "only the http/1.1 delivery protocol"

- section 7.2/7.3:
  remove "Besides, "

- section 8:
  "to run out of" -> "to unnecessarily consume"
  "above well.  However," -> " above, however,"
  "should not have to served by" -> "should not have to be served by"
  "dCDN and it may not disclose" -> "dCDN; and it SHOULD not disclose"
  "a dCDN may consider" -> "a dCDN could consider"
  "And it needs to avoid expoing" -> "A dCDN SHOULD avoid exposing"

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 11:29 AM Jan Seedorf <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dear CDNI chairs and CDNI WG,
>
> the ALTO WG is finalizing "Content Delivery Network Interconnection
> (CDNI) Request Routing: CDNI Footprint and Capabilities Advertisement
> using ALTO" (draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-08). For the WGLC
> we are about to issue, we would like to have one individual review from
> a CDNI expert (the other one coming from the ALTO WG). Can you please
> name/choose/recommend a CDNI expert that can provide an individual
> review for the draft? We (ALTO chairs) would then start the WGLC ...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jan
>
>
>

---

From: Jensen Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 09:09:49 -0500

Hi Kevin and Sanjay,

Thank you so much for the reviews. Please see my comments inline.

>  or change the order in the json example

Thanks for catching it! Fixed.

>
>   why do the filtered-cdnifci-property-map countrycode and asn
> capabilities not have my-default-network-map.pid properties?
>

It is not reasonable to define my-default-network-map.pid properties of
countrycode or asn entities. In the base ALTO protocol (RFC7285), a PID is
defined as an aggregation of endpoint addresses. So in this example, this
ALTO server does not allow any client to request such mappings from the
filtered-cdnifci-property-map resource.

> ""application/merge-patch+jso" should be ""application/merge-patch+json"

Fixed. Thanks!

>  specifically, should "http/2" be "https/1.1" in 3.7.3?

Good point! The examples should be revised.

>
>   in the footprint example, should the "value": "ipv4:192.0.2.0/24
> <http://192..0.2.0/24>" be a footprint object, i.e., "{ "footprint-type":
> "ipv4", "footprint-value": ["192.0.2.0/24"] } ?  (same comment applies to
> the example in 5.7.3)
>

Yes, it should. Fixed.

> ipv4 footprint structure?

Yes, it will change the footprint-value array. Assuming the "ipv4"
footprint-type is the first footprint object, we should use the following
JSON patch to do the update

{ "op": "add",
  "path": "/cdni-fci/capabilities/0/footprints/0/footprint-value/-",
  "value": "192.0.2.0/24" }

The authors will fix it.

> "http/1.1" doesn't actually change anything?

Good catch. The values in Sec 6.2.3 and Sec 6.2.4 should be different.
Fixed.

> Metadata Footprint Types" registry, and add a link to its definition in

I agree. WIll do it.

>
> - authors:
>   probably should change my email to: [email-masked] and
> remove my Ericsson affiliation?
>

No problem. Will update.

>   "only if the entry contains at least one of the client given
> capabilities will it be returned to the client" -> "an entry will only be
> returned to the client if it contains at least one of the client given
> capabilities"
>
> - section 5.7.2:

Fixed. Thanks for all the grammar check.

Thanks again for the reviews. I did not see any major issues attacking the
current design. The authors will fix all the issues above and submit a new
version.

Thanks,
Jensen